I'm excited for Aronofsky's continued evolution into a Roman Polanski whose movies I don't have to feel guilty about supporting. This looks like a great companion piece to Black Swan in a lot of ways, and I'm happy that Jennifer Lawrence is getting pushed out of the David O. Russell groove she seemed to have settled into.

I think it looks great. I struggle to see Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence as a couple for some reason. I think she's really good but seems like she often ends up getting parts that are slightly too old for her. The music is abrasive but effective, and it'll be nice to see Aronofsky cut loose - not that he ever holds back.

Watching this trailer is one of the top ten mistakes I've made in my life. The movie looks so damn good, but the trailer goes through almost every beat of the film.

Interesting. Watching the trailer, other than it's a [spoiler] scenario (maybe??) I'm not convinced I know much about the third act

Well, me neither but now I've seen all of those creepy shots instead of watching them unfold within the plot for the first time. I've pretty much forgotten what they are now, though. Something with a [spoiler]? Anyway, 'IT' was my most anticipated film of this year until I saw that trailer, so it's cool. This week we get to see em fight it out! This has to be the better one, there's a quality in it that screams it will go down in the pantheon of great horror films. "IT" is going to be much better than the TV series, but a great film? That's still up in the air.

So yeah. Wow. I don't quite have all the words for this yet. But I will say it's going to be the best film of the year by a wide margin. That feels safe to say. This is a legit work of art that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Aronofksy's best and even some of Lars Von Trier's best.

Please go in without spoilers! Although I will say even if you are a bit spoiled, like you've seen that trailer, the movie definitely has further delights in store.

I thought it was obvious, but seriously, their forest hideaway is called "Eden," and the characters are credited as "He" and "She." Remember the piles of bodies that appeared in the tree roots scene, and later on the path in the epilogue? I first thought they were dead bodies, i.e. representations of gynocide, but I convinced myself otherwise. There's no blood, wounds, scarring, or anything that would suggest violence. I haven't cracked open a bible yet, but I'm pretty sure God is said to have given life to flesh, or some such thing. These could be women who have not yet been given life. When "He" eats the forbidden fruit at the very end, the women come to life, and converge toward him peacefully, as if he's the creator. This is some kind of reinterpretation of Genesis, or a new creation myth altogether.

Also recall that the Dafoe character is nailed through the leg and forced to drag a weight around. He even goes into a tomb of sorts and "rises" through the ground. Christ, anyone? (Dafoe has played the character before, after all.) We know LVT is not averse to crucifixion analogies (Dancer in the Dark).

[...]

It could be a Noah's ark type of thing. Look at it this way: The history of misogynism, and indeed even gynocide, had obliterated the female gender to the point of existential crisis — total destruction from within and without. So deep, in fact, were the wounds that they could cause the kind of horror we see in this film, which in this worldview I assume is representative of the whole. Everything is so out of balance that a new beginning is required, so the female gender is recreated.

It's like Aronofksy saw the end of Antichrist and was like "hmm that's good, but can we go a bit further?"

That was some seriously thick allegory. Even small things felt like components of a biblical-style narrative, including the quarreling brothers, and J-Law resting for several days (?) until she finally went to sleep. I'm still absorbing everything and putting it together, but obviously the fable/allegorical qualities get more intense from there. Their house is even called "paradise" (like Eden in Antichrist). My first impression is that these are twin deities — "the inspiration" and the creator. Then we see how humanity breaks down and fails as life plays out. Humans are selfish, misguided, destructive, invasive. They are deeply annoying and endlessly problematic. But the creator still has empathy for his creations all the way through the end — "but we have to forgive them!"

Humanity has to be destroyed ("I'll go take care of this... apocalypse") and remade, and the cycle continues.

Like Antichrist, this was an explosive combination of dazzling filmmaking and mythic storytelling. I want to see it again right now!

If you thought the character names in Antichrist were cute ("He" and "She"), holy crap, check out the credits for this one.

This film is very much worth seeing at the cinema for its sound design alone, which I hope is nominated/recognized.

spoilers!

A conversation on the Shoutbox about nihilism comes to mind every now and then. This then seeped into journaling/thinking about faith and grace and, of course, rang out in my head today after the movie. When I'm at my most doubtful it's as if the world were His onslaught.

One I would like to participate in although I hold stake only as precursor (to thought, my own, 'inspiration' but not agent). In those states (and they'll happen to me again, as they do to Mother & Him) I don't understand how anyone could think this is "for them" when nothing seems to be "for me." Ego as institution and (self defeating?) personal struggle. A first communion does feel like this film portrayed it. As a child religious texts come at you with these horrible images, but then you learn to laugh as you watch them recur. Parts of the third act was funny in that same way.

When I saw Requiem for a Dream I thought it was a movie that everyone should see but maybe not more than once. This is just a director through the medium of film, expressing how angry he is with mankind, religion, misogyny.. take your pick.. and doing it in such a way as to disgust and deeply unsettle people to the core. There's a lot of allegory and metaphors to be had. It's going to create a lot of conversation. Xixax is perfect for a movie like this. For me it was just too over-the-top. The performances are incredible. The production is incredible. (The stairwell humanity sequence is almost worth the price of admission alone.) But especially the last act of the film hits you over the head with an anvil over and over again in a way that had me sitting there thinking "ok FUCK I get it, but did we need to see THAT?"

And holy shit if we had to make a top 10 list of the most mismarketed, untrailerable movies of all time I think you have to include it.

Anyway, by all means go and see it if you love film. This one will be a big part of Darren Aronofsky's canon. There's no other way to describe it but as an experience. It's like nothing you've seen for a very long time. But I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing. In the end I found myself asking is this ultimately just about Darren himself?

jb is the reason i went to see it. i believe that what he appreciates, and what is true, is that inspection of this movie's innards causes inspection of the innards of human existence, creating a spiritual vivisection within cinematic conversation. i appreciate the fullness of this movie. how bad everyone looks, from a variety of philosophical angles. the anchor is J-Law and her eyes, and i believe she brings it. therefore i believe this movie is rather unchallengeable in pivotal perspectives from which i wish not to back away. what i am not sure of is if i will need or want to watch this movie again. it was rather transparent and its allegorical references are self-nurturing. but again, with its fullness, is it not worth being nurtured? its nightmare narrative challenges the promise of movies bringing us better dreams, and its Cinemascore F solidifies it as what haunted audiences this year, but it is rather too well organized to belong to trash culture, making it a piece of art house from Hollywood. and the summary is, really i cannot dislike Aronofsky much, even if i wanted to.

^ Fully agree with all of that, except I do have a strong urge to see it again.

SPOILS

After reading how forward Aronofsky is about the biblical meaning of the film, and thinking back on various details of the movie... every bit of allegory is very much in your face. So on a second watch, rather than looking to solve a puzzle, I anticipate a more dark-comedic/bonkers experience. Kind of like what Rian Johnson is talking about.

That said, I think there are still many layers of philosophical meaning to discover. For example, the film shows humans as selfish and needy, and I wonder if in that way they are made in God's (Javier Bardem's) image. To what extent is mother! an indictment of the Christian God? Each time he creates humanity, they always inevitably cause an apocalypse. Is that part of the fun for him? I'm a bit haunted by his smile at the end.

And you're right — I'm a sucker for grand mythic/spiritual content in a movie, especially if it's a bit of a surprise.